Communist Party USA excited about this election

The conservative ideal still endures and will take a lot more then John McCain's election to stifle. It's not an 'idea' that can lose favor but rather an affirmation of the greater part of men that believes people can do far more then they think they can and possess a worth realized only be their OWN desire to excel rather then to languish.

The premise of Communism and Liberalism is that the individual can't achieve and the community needs to contribute. That a community is in debt to those that by choice or circumstance don't excel. Problem is human nature, like the rest of nature, takes the path of least resistance. The false logic is that providing for an individual will enable them to excel. The reality is that people achieve by desire and languish when unchallenged.

Ask a leader, a teacher, even a parent what effects the manifestation of the potential in someone more, challenging them or coddling them and waiting for them to respond with ambitious initiative. The good ones will tell you the former will work on the hardest of heads.
 
And if I feed the baby black bears this spring because I am smarter, the Game Commission may arrest me for causing the baby bears to be dependent on me instead of learning to fend for themselves.
 
Good analogy.

The real motive of those that espouse Communism and Liberalism is to create dependence upon them rather then upon your own abilities therefore seeding them all the power over your future. Given that state of dependence power becomes irretrievable.

I was researching something and came across the quote most are familiar with that a pure democracy cannot succeed because the people will soon vote themselves the treasury and render the nation bankrupt. That is why we have a Republic. Democrat, democratic, democracy, or any other form of that word are not found anywhere in the Constitution. But what I found more revealing was the anthology of that quote. Here it is in context. This is in reference to the fall of the Athenian Republic which was a big event when this quote was spoken.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
Click to expand...

Today we have two candidates running for office PROMISING to deliver the most money from the public treasure. That party is defined by that promise. The battle is which candidate will give the most. 'My plan will cover ALL Americans'. So where are we? Selfishness? complacency? apathy? dependency?

Here are some more:
It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man."
Click to expand...

Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position.
Click to expand...

Here's one for those that think conservatism is faltering:
We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all
Click to expand...

Determine if you find your political views line up with those above then find who your lined up with........
 
The thinking of the left is described pretty well in this article. John Kerry is one of the leftists active during this period. I am afraid that Clinton and Obama are to the left of Kerry.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/1998/04/30/american_leftists_were_pol_pots_cheerleaders/?page=1

American leftists were Pol Pot's cheerleaders
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | April 30, 1998

The death of Pol Pot, 23 years to the day after he and the Khmer Rouge seized control of Cambodia, occasioned long backward glances at one of the 20th century's most horrific genocides. It was noted everywhere that the communist reign of terror in Cambodia lasted nearly four years and that at least 1 million human beings -- by some estimates as many as 2 1/2 million -- were murdered in an orgy of executions, torture, and starvation.

``In the name of a radical utopia,'' The New York Times recalled in its long obituary, ``the Khmer Rouge regime had turned most of the people into slaves. . . . Dictatorial village leaders and soldiers told the people whom to marry and how to live, and those who disobeyed were killed. [Those] who did not bend to the political mania were buried alive, or tossed into the air and speared on bayonets. Some were fed to crocodiles.'' Nearby was a photograph of human skulls -- emblem of the dreadful ``killing fields'' in which the communists butchered a quarter of Cambodia's people.

But nowhere in the Times story was there a reminder that the Khmer Rouge was able to seize power only after the US Congress in 1975 cut off all aid to the embattled pro-American government of Lon Nol -- and that it did so despite frantic warnings of the bloodbath that would ensue. President Ford warned of ``horror and tragedy'' if Cambodia was abandoned to the Khmer Rouge and pleaded with Congress to supply Lon Nol's army with the tools it needed to defend itself.

To no avail. US troops had come home two years earlier, but American antiwar activists were still intent on effecting the ``liberation'' of Southeast Asia. Radicals like Jane Fonda, David Dellinger, and Tom Hayden stormed the country, denouncing anyone who opposed communist victory in Cambodia and Vietnam. On the campuses, in the media, and in Congress, it was taken on faith that a Khmer Rouge victory would bring peace and enlightened leadership to Cambodia.

``The growing hysteria of the administration's posture on Cambodia,'' declared Senator George McGovern, ``seems to me to reflect a determined refusal to consider what the fall of the existing government in Phnom Penh would actually mean. . . . We should be able to see that the kind of government which would succeed Lon Nol's forces would most likely be a government . . . run by some of the best-educated, most able intellectuals in Cambodia.''

Stanley Karnow, hailed nowadays as an authoritative Indochina historian, was quite sure that ``the `loss' of Cambodia would . . . be the salvation of the Cambodians.'' There was no point helping the noncommunist government survive, he wrote, ``since the rebels are unlikely to kill more innocent civilians than are being slaughtered by the rockets promiscuously hitting Phnom Penh.''

The New Republic told its readers that the ouster of Lon Nol should be of no concern, since ``the Cambodian people will finally be rescued from the horrors of a war that never really had any meaning.''

In Washington, then-Representative Christopher Dodd of Connecticut averred: ``The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now.''

Was this willful blindness or mere stupidity? To believe that the Khmer Rouge would be good for Cambodia, one had to ignore everything the world had learned about communist brutality since 1917. How could intelligent Americans have said such things?

But they did, repeatedly.

In the news columns of The New York Times, the celebrated Sydney Schanberg wrote of Cambodians that ``it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.'' He dismissed predictions of mass executions in the wake of a Khmer Rouge victory: ``It would be tendentious to forecast such abnormal behavior as national policy under a Communist government once the war is over.'' On April 13, 1975, Schanberg's dispatch from Phnom Penh was headlined, ``Indochina without Americans: for most, a better life.''

On the op-ed page, Anthony Lewis was calling ``the whole bloodbath debate unreal. What future could possibly be more terrible,'' he demanded, ``than the reality of what is happening to Cambodia now?''

As the death marches out of Phnom Penh proceeded, Lewis went on making excuses for the Khmer Rouge. He mused that it was ``the only way to start on their vision of a new society.'' Americans who objected were guilty of ``cultural arrogance, an imperial assumption, that . . . our way of life'' would be better.

Amazing, the lies that were told as Cambodia's holocaust roared on. The ``scholars'' were the worst. Gareth Porter and G.C. Hildebrand of the Indochina Resource Center insisted that Pol Pot's horrendous cruelties ``saved the lives of tens of thousands of people.'' Ben Kiernan, who would eventually head the Cambodian Genocide Program, asserted that ``the Khmer Rouge movement is not the monster that the press have recently made it out to be.'' Tell that to a million murdered Cambodians.

Twenty-three years ago, American leftists cheered, justified, and denied as the communists plunged Cambodia into a nightmare of atrocity. In the end, they failed to whitewash Pol Pot's record. They will not succeed in whitewashing their own.
Click to expand...
 
American Communist Party

I have been saying for the last 12 years that the Democratic Party is now:

THE AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC SOCIALEST PARTY
 
Do others find it odd that many democrats and liberals will ALWAYS predict mayhem, violence, and bloodshed, should normally law abiding Americans be allowed to carry a pistol, concealed, in public, yet will swear up and down that a communist government is nothing to be concerned about with regards to the safety of its own citizens if not that of the entire world? I see this is as just another of the many logical disconnects with regards to real life that the far left exhibits. I was just wondering if I'm alone in that observation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top